.9Lrcfiimeaes NEW STUDIES IN THE HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

VOLUME 2

EDITOR

JED Z. BUCHWALD, Bern Dibner Professor of the History of Science at MIT, and Director of The Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology,

Cambridge, MA, USA.

ADVISORY BOARD

HENK Bos, University of Utrecht MORDECHAI FEINGOLD, Virginia Polytechnic Institute

ALLAN D. FRANKLIN, University of Colorado at Boulder KOSTAS GAVROGLU, National Technical University of Athens

ANTHONY GRAFf ON, Princeton University FREDERIC L. HOLMES, Yale University

PAUL HOYNINGEN-HUENE, University of Konstanz EVELYN Fox KELLER, MIT

TREVOR LEVERE, University of Toronto JESPER LlrrzEN, Copenhagen University WILLIAM NEWMAN, Harvard University

JiJRGEN RENN, Max-Planck-Institutfiir Wissenschaftsgeschichte ALAN SHAPIRO, University of Minnesota

NANCY SIRAISI, Hunter College of the City University of New York MERRITT ROE SMITH, MIT

NOEL SWERDLOW, University of Chicago

Ylrcliim£des has three fundamental goals; to further the integration of the histories of sci­ence and technology with one another: to investigate the technical, social and practical histories of specific developments in science and technology; and finally, where possible and desirable, to bring the histories of science and technology into closer contact with the philosophy of science. To these ends, each volume will have its own theme and title and will be planned by one or more members of the Advisory Board in consultation with the editor. Although the volumes have specific themes, the series itself will not be limited to one or even to a few particular areas. Its subjects include any of the sciences, ranging from biology through physics, all aspects of technology, broadly construed, as well as historically-engaged philosophy of science or technology. Taken as a whole, .9i.rcliim£des will be of interest to historians, philosophers, and scientists, as well as to those in business and industry who seek to understand how science and industry have come to be so strongly linked.

.f2Lrchimeaes 2

New Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology

The Sciences in the European Periphery During the Enlightenment

edited by

KOSTAS GAVROGLU

University of Athens, Athens, Greece

SPRINGER SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V.

A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 978-0-7923-6563-1 ISBN 978-94-011-4770-5 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-4770-5

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

Origina11y published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1999

Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1 st edition 1999 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or

utilized in llilY form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and

retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.

CONTENTS

PREFACE ............................................................................................ vii

ANA SIMOES, ANA CARNEIRO, MARIA PAULA DIOGO / Constructing Knowledge: Eighteenth-Century Portugal and the New Sciences .. 1

DIMITRIS DIALETIS, KOSTAS GAVROGLU, MANOLIS PATINIOTIS / The Sciences in the Greek Speaking Regions during the 17th and 18th

Centuries ....................................................................................... 41

AGUSTi NIETO-GALAN / The Images of Science in Modem Spain ....... 73

LUIGI CERRuTI/Dante's Bones ......................................................... 95

ARNE HESSENBRUCH / The Spread of Precision Measurement in Scandinavia 1660-1800 ............................................................... 179

v

DIMITRIS DIALETIS, KOSTAS GA VROGLU, MANOLIS PATINIOTIS

THE SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS DURING THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES

The process of appropriation and the dynamics of reception and resistance

INTRODUCTION

What has been known as the Scientific Revolution of the 16th, and especially the 17th century was an exclusively European phenomenon. While the social, ideologi­cal, conceptual, theological, economic, and political repercussions of the new ideas developed during the Scientific Revolution have been systematically studied within the setting of the countries where that revolution originated, only few historical works have dealt with the issues related to the introduction of these ideas to the countries in the periphery of Europe (that is, the countries of the Iberian Peninsula, the Balkans, the Eastern European and the Scandinavian countries). How did the ideas of the Scientific Revolution migrate to these countries? What were the parti­cularities of their expression in each country? What were the specific forms of re­sistance to these new ideas and to what extent did they display national characteris­tics? What were the legitimising procedures for the acceptance of the new ways of dealing with nature? Did the discourse used by the scholars for writing and discus­sing scientific issues share the same features as the discourse developed by their colleagues in the countries of Western Europe? Any ttttempt to understand the as­similation of the ideas of the Scientific Revolution in these regions and to assess the characteristics of the resistance to such an assimilation-especially during the En­lightenment- cannot omit discussion of at least some of these questions.

In this paper we shall discuss some of the issues related to the introduction of the new sciences to the Greek speaking regions during the 18th century.' Necessarily, we will also have to refer to developments in the 17th and 19th centuries. Such a dis­cussion calls for a contextual approach: it cannot be conducted independently of an

• All the scholars wrote and taught in Greek. The regions where they lived and worked were quite often ofa rather complicated ethnic composition. In any case, we should stress that the regions we are referring to are by no menas the same as those forming part of modem Gree­ce. In many instances Greek scholars lived and worked in societies where there was a domi­nant element of Greek speaking merchants, e.g. Vienna, Leipzig, Venice, etc.

41 K. Gavroglu (ed.), The Sciences in the European Periphery During the Enlightenment© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

42 D. DIALETIS, K. GAVROGLU, M. PATINIOTIS

overall historical assessment of what it means for ideas that originated in a particu­lar cultural and historical setting to have been «transmitted» into a different cultural milieu with different intellectual traditions and different political and educational institutions.

We find the concept of the <<transfer» of ideas to be ultimately inadequate in contextualizing the dissemination of the new sciences in the Greek speaking popu­lations, and in this paper we hope to indicate that «appropriation» can be a more coherent and fruitful analytic instrument. Appropriation directs attention to the measures devised within the appropriating culture in order to shape the new ideas within the local traditions which form the framework of local constraints -political, ideological, as well as intellectual constraints.

A historiography based on the concept of transfer can easily degenerate into an algorithm for keeping tabs on what is and what is not [«successfully»] transmitted. A historiography built around the concept of appropriation is more comparable to the procedures of cultural history; acceptance or rejection, reception or opposition are intrinsically cultural processes. Such an approach also permits the newly introduced scientific ideas to be treated not as the sum total of discrete units of knowledge but as a network of interconnected concepts. The practical outcome of a historiography of appropriation is to be able to articulate the particularities of discourse that is developed and eventually adopted within the appropriating culture.

Undoubtedly the concept of transmission of ideas is of some use to the historian of ideas. This, however, is apparent only when the transmission of ideas is used for certain specific cases within a wider context of the appropriation of multiple cultu­ral traditions by the Greek speaking societies during a specified period of their history. In these occasions the intellectual and institutional framework for the re­ception of the new ideas is, to a large extent, conditioned by the cultural and religi­ous traditions of the Greek speaking societies together with the role and structure of their educational institutions.

The purpose of the present inquiry, then, is not to examine the success of a pro­cess of transfer, but to study the production of a distinctive scientific discourse through the reception of the Western ideas within the Greek speaking regions du­ring the 18th century. Members of a national community which was under occupa­tion and had no state institutions of its own were able to appropriate new scientific ideas in forms that could function within a specific cultural milieu. A synthesis of elements of ancient Greek thought with christian Orthodox tradition had already emerged by the 18th century as a strong cohesive element in the intellectual identity of the Greek nation; the legitimation of the new scientific ideas ran parallel with economic and political restructuring, both assisting in the formation of a new cohe­rent ideology and political stand, connecting the past of the Greeks with their future prospects as independent nation.

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 43

The history of ideas of the Greek speaking regions in the Ottoman Empire from the fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Greek Revolution of 1821 is invariably linked with the educational policies articulated by the Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Simply put, the sciences in the educational institutions -which were under the jurisdiction of the Church throughout this period - were in­troduced as part of a modem curriculum which also (re)introduced ancient Greek thought as the precursor of all the glorious developments in Europe. The introduc­tion of the sciences served both to "enlighten" the youth as well as to help create a national consciousness through the establishment of an intriguing continuity: from the ancients through Byzantium to the present leading to a future when "glory" will be re-established again in Greece. Thus, from the early years of the 1 i h century, the introduction of the sciences was subservient to the political and, to a certain extent, ideological reorientations of the Church and of the newly emerging social groups.

In this paper we would like to argue the following points. 1. Most analyses of the Scientific Revolution and the establishment of the new sci­ences in the various countries in Europe take into consideration a host of questions related to the formation of state institutions. Issues, for example, concerning pa­tronage, the establishment of academies and the usefulness of the new sciences for economic production are couched within the context of the formation of state in­stitutions. The situation was radically different in the Greek speaking regions and the Balkans which were under the Ottoman domination. Quite naturally, apart from the Church, the Greeks did not have any centrally administered institutions. In the study of the introduction and reception of the sciences a series of complicated is­sues enter the picture, especially since the Ottoman administration had granted to the Greek Orthodox Church the responsibility for the education of the Christian population. The content, however, of what was taught was not solely determined by the Church. It was, rather, the confluence of largely similar but at times conflicting aims of the religious hierarchy, of the social groups with significant economic ac­tivity and of the scholars themselves. And in order to comprehend what appeared to be a unified educational policy of the Church, it becomes necessary to articulate the relatively autonomous agendas of each of these religious and social groups. 2. In introducing the new sciences, the Greek scholars did not attempt to introduce natural philosophy per se, but, rather, they sought a new way of philosophising. This discourse lacked the constitutive features of the discourse of natural philoso­phyas it was being articulated and legitimised in Western Europe: it was primarily a philosophical discourse. Even while writing about the recent scientific develop­ments, the Greek scholars of the Enlightenment thOUght of themselves first and foremost as philosophers. They did acknowledge the uniqueness of the develop­ments in Western Europe concerning the new sciences; but they did not perceive these developments as a break with the approach of the ancient Greek philosophers.

44 D. DJALETIS, K. GAVROGLU, M. PATINIOTIS

The new sciences were, on the whole, interpreted as an expected corroboration of the programmatic declarations of ancient Greek philosophers. In introducing the new scientific ideas, they were reluctant to adopt the discourse used by the natural philosophers in the academic centres of Western Europe. It is only within such an interpretative framework that one can comprehend the absence of any discussion concerning the character of the rules of the new ways to study nature, the processes of legitimising the new viewpoint, and the initiation of consensual activities to con­solidate the new attitude about the ways of dealing with natural phenomena. 3. Most of the books on science written by Greek scholars in the period of the En­lightenment were intended for use in education, and it has been the case that they seldom present scientific theories with the rogor expected of pedagogical texts written in the same period in Europe. Such discrepancies with respect to European norms have often been attributed to uneven scientific competence, a «watering down» of science at the periphery. We argue that this interpretation is uncalled for; it arises as a more or less direct consequence of the explanatory concept of «transfer», which locates the agency on the side of the culture in which the ideas originated. If one adopts the notion of transfer, this implies a kind of filtering proc­ess: there is a selective procedure in the transferring since it depends 011 who trans­fers the ideas, when and for what purpose they are transmitted. The study, then, of the introduction of the sciences is often reduced to accounts of what is held by the filter. But, such a viewpoint undermines the specificity of the sciences in the Greek speaking regions, that is, the subtle transformations of the scientific ideas during their process of appropriation. 4. In the centre, the main role of scientists was to produce scientific knowledge whereas their role in the periphery - perhaps with the exception of the Scandina­vian countries - was entirely different. It was to disseminate this knowledge through the educational structures. Thus the predominantly productive role of the scientists in the centre has to be contrasted with the predominantly educational role of the scholars in the periphery. The educational agenda of the scholars played a rather decisive role since the discussion and the dissemination of the sciences was being exclusively realised within the educational institutions and many a times in reference to issues pertaining to education.

THE YEARS AFTER THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

The last century of the Byzantine Empire witnessed works in astronomy, mathema­tics, alchemy and, of course, philosophy by scholars who formed the intellectual elite of a society fraught with religious disputes and political struggles. The exodus of these scholars and their migration, mainly to Italy and France, had started quite some time before the fall of Constantinople in 1453. In most instances, these scho-

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 45

lars found their new environments quite congenial and in most cases they adopted a rather sympathetic position towards Catholicism. In the decade preceding the Fall, the dominant political forces had come to favor between the Eastern and Western Churches - even though Rome would clearly have the upper hand - as holding out the only hope of rescuing Eastern Christendom from the Ottomans. It was a move aimed at convincing the Catholics - nearly two centuries after the catastrop­hic siege and occupation of Constantinople by the forces of the fourth crusade bet­ween 1204 and 1261 - to rally for the rescue of Eastern Christianity. In contrast, the scholars who remained in Constantinople and initiated the re-establishment of the educational institutions, were, as a rule, carriers of an anti-western attitude.

Immediately after the fall of Constantinople, the Sultan Mohammed II -Mohammed the Conqueror - allowed the Patriarchate to continue its function. The Patriarch was recognised by the Sultan as the legal head of the Orthodox millet

(nation). Most importantly, the Patriarchate was gianted full jurisdiction over the education of the Orthodox CPJistian populations in the Ottoman Empire and, eventually, the right to develop mechanisms to collect some form of taxation from the parishes, while at the same time it was set free of tax obligations towards the Ottoman state. The Sultan's decision was, partly at least, a response to the contin­gencies of the new era of the Ottoman Empire. The serious difficulties relating to the administration of a continuously expanding Empire with a progressively increa­sing Christian population and the threat from Christian Europe could be eased by granting this limited political autonomy to the Patriarchate as well as by taking ad­vantage of the deep animosity between the Orthodox Church and Rome. The Or­thodox Church was at the time the only organised institution which could represent Christian nations of the Balkan Peninsula in their dealings with the Ottoman admi­nistration. Furthermore, the Patriarchate had already created a structured ecclesias­tical hierarchy which allowed control of even the smallest Christian community in the area. Moreover, the choice of the Patriarchate as the de facto political repre­sentative of the Christian popUlations of the Balkans would contribute to the con­solidation of the Ottoman Empire' s newly acquired lands in the West. During that period, the idea of a European crusade against the Ottoman Empire under the aegis of the Papacy was a strong element of political coherence in threatened Europe. By setting up the Patriarchate as an autonomous political institution, as well as streng­thening the forces contrary to the union of the Churches, Mohammed intended to minimize the possibilities for the realisation of such plans.

The Sultan appointed as the new Patriarch Gennadios Scholarios (1400-1460). It should be noted that since 1450 the Patriarchate had been in effect headless, while the nominal Patriarch Gregory III was in Rome. Gennadios Scholarios was a well­known jurist, rhetor and philosopher, and played an important role in political life during the last years of the Byzantine era. As a philosopher, he was of aristotelian

46 D. D1ALETIS, K. GAVROGLU, M. PA TINIOTIS

orientation, a follower of Aquinas and an opponent of Pletho's platonism. Among his writings we note the Synopsis of Aristotle's Physics with Simplicio's Commen­taries and Against Pletho 's Queries of Aristotle. He was an officer of the Byzantine state, and a member of the delegations that represented the Orthodox Church during the negotiations with the Catholics. Though at first an advocate of the union of the Churches, soon afterwards, he became a fierce opponent, attacking the attempts of the emperor Constantinos Paleologos to come to terms with Pope Nicholas V. Historians agree that the Emperor's motives in agreeing to the union of the Chur­ches were based less on religious grounds and more on the hope of securing the military support of the western countries against the Ottoman threat. Especially du­ring the siege of Constantinople, Gennadios Scholarios made an intense propagan­da against the Catholic Church. When Mohammed conquered Constantinople he saw in Gennadios the person to become the first Patriarch. Gennadios undertook the task of reviving the intellectual life of the city. He founded the first official school, the Patriarchal Academy, which was the continuation of the Pandidakterion of the Byzantine era, and appointed Mathaeos Kamariotis as its first director.

The exact date of Kamariotis' birth is unknown; he remained director of the Pa­triarchal Academy up to his death in 1489 or 1490. There is no information concer­ning the curriculum of the Academy. However, it is reasonable to suppose that it was similar to the standard Byzantine curriculum, since Kamariotis had been a well-known teacher for many years before the fall. From the part of his work that is known to us today we can see that he had then included in the curriculum ancient Greek literature, rhetoric and theology, while he was an opponent of Pie tho's ideas.

By the end of the 16th century and within the context of counter-reformation af­ter the Council of Trent (1545-1563), Rome defined a new policy towards the Greek population of the Ottoman Empire, designed to prevent any rapprochement between the Protestants and the Orthodox. In the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Patriarchates of both Constantinople and Jerusalem became fields of contention between the Catholics and the Protestants. The Jesuits attempted to cre­ate Catholic zones in the eastern Mediterranean basin and to this purpose they co­operated with the Ottomans, attempting at the same time to bribe several officers of the Orthodox Church.

The College of Saint Athanassios (Collegio Greco), in Rome, where many Greek scholars - who later in their lives became quite eminent - attended clas­ses, played an important role in the development of the political influence of the Catholics. This College was founded in 1577 and its main mission was to offer hig­her education to the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire through study and acquaintance of the world of the Catholic Church. Theology according to the teachings of Aris­totle and Thomas Aquinas was the basis of the curriculum. The doctrines of the Catholic Church, ancient Greek and Latin literature, Aristotelian philosophy and

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 47

advanced theological education were included in the curriculum. Graduates before returning back to their country of origin, were asked to propagandise Catholicism, to cultivate Greek letters, and to support anti-Ottoman ideas, since the Ottomans were still viewed as the main enemy of the Christian world.

During the same period, the Protestants were trying to increase their influence in the eastern Mediterranean, especially through the activity of the ambassadors of England, Holland, Germany, and Sweden. Not unexpectedly, they offered support to the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Jerusalem. Their shared hostility to Ca­tholicism brought the Protestants and the Greek Orthodox close to each other. In 1620 Kyrillos Loukaris (1572-1638) became Patriarch of Constantinople. During the early stages of the 30-year war, Loukaris planned a series of political moves to consolidate the survival of the Orthodox Church. He felt that there were unmistaka­ble signs of an impending alliance between Catholic France and the Ottomans. He saw such an alliance as the main danger against the Orthodox Church, and he sought supporters among the Protestants, especially the Dutch. The ambassador of .Holland to the Ottoman Court turned out to be a very co-operative ally. Loukaris, also, proceeded to write a notorious leaflet arguing for the common theological grounds between Calvinism and Orthodoxy. Many serious theologians - and not only his adversaries - accused him of adopting Protestantism.

Being convinced that the Catholic propagand!l was effective because of its edu­cational institutions, Loukaris upgraded the Patriarchal Academy and introduced what came to be known as «religious humanisIID). He himself had studied at the Greek School of Venice, under Maximos Margunios, from 1584 until 1588 and he had completed his studies at the University of Padua in 1593.

Religious humanism was an attempt to synthesize the teachings of ancient Greeks with the teachings of the Orthodox Church fathers, considering the intel­lectual traditions originating in Greek antiquity and those of Christianity as a unity. Religious humanism became the means for moulding a kind of national consci­ousness by reclaiming hellenistic roots through Greek Orthodox Christian teaching. In the prevailing conditions of intense national reorientations and regroupings in Europe, such a strategy aimed at upgrading the political role of the Patriarchate by providing an institutional expression to the ties between orthodoxy and hellenism. Such initiatives led not only to the establishment of new educational institutions, but, eventually, to the furthering of the Church's dominance through the articula­tion of a new ideological and political agenda. The idea that the Orthodox Church must safeguard the great intellectual tradition of the nation and protect Hellenism from the "Ottoman despot and the propaganda or the contrivances of Catholicism" was given a theoretical justification and an institutional expression.

The strong and systematic reference tb the ancients eventually created a rather restricted space for lay theology and this was to prove quite important for the way

48 D. DIALETlS, K. GAVROGLU, M. PA T1NIOTIS

the Greek scholars would collectively decide to promote the new scientific ideas. Establishing new schools with new curricula had a very specific purpose: t9 keep alive and modernize a national culture whose constitutive domains were both the ancients and Orthodox Christianity. In this context, the new scientific ideas were, at least partly, introduced as a means of underlining the success of the ancients' ideas.

In 1622 Kyrillos Loukaris appointed a renowned neo-Aristotelian, Theophilos Korydalleas (1570-1646), to the directorship of the Patriarchal Academy. The latter had studied in Italy during the first decade of the seventeenth century~ In 1604 he attended classes at the Greek College in Rome. He went on to study at the Univer­sity of Padua, at a time when Cesare Cremonini was the dominant figure and the articulate defender of Aristotelianism, especially against the new science introdu­ced by his colleague there, Galileo Galilei. Korydalleas received his doctorate in Philosophy and Medicine, around 1608. In the Patriarchal Academy Korydalleas reorganised teaching along the ways practised in Padua. A central place was assig­ned to philosophy - as distinct from theology - and to the interpretation of the commentaries on the main works of Aristotle. Korydalleas' humanistic brand of philosophy contained the potential for a rupture with a strictly theological approach to nature and to human affairs. But at the same time, there was a conscious policy to contain and develop this~ew approach exclusively within the framework of neo­Aristotelianism, during a period when such a framework was being undermined and redefined elsewhere in Europe.

Theophylos Korydalleas, even though he was well acquainted with Descartes' philosophical and scientific works and he had, undoubtedly, come into contact with the ideas and the debates about heliocentrism during his stay in Italy, promoted the Aristotelian worldview. Nowhere in his works did he mention the heliocentric sys­tem, not even in order to criticize it. In 1626 he is thought to have written his Glo­bal Geography According to Ptolemy. This work was never published but referen­ces to it from his students indicate that it was a piece which revived the interest of the Greek scholars in the work of the Alexandrian astronomer, fifteen centuries af­ter its first presentation. Korydalleas, however, held a viewpoint different from Ptolemy'S. While the latter sought a mathematical description and modelling of the celestial movements, Korydalleas focused on physical, qualitative description, pointing out the Aristotelian features of the Ptolemaic cosmography. The Earth was at the centre of the universe because, as Aristotle taught, heavy bodies tended to fall towards the centre. The celestial spheres moved around the earth, depicting the celestial hierarchy. He also insisted on the main Aristotelian separation between the eternal and perfect world beyond the Moon and the world of change below it. At the end of the text, KorydaUeas provided a brief descriptive account of the Ptole­maic theory of epicycles.

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 49

KorydaUeas, through his teachings, contributed decisively to the gradual fusion between the Orthodox Christian theology and aristotelianism. The new methods of mathematical physics and the quantitatively oriented study of nature are nowhere to be found among his works. Against the unified, homogeneous, deterministic, and infinite universe of the newly articulated cosmology, he juxtaposed the finite and closed aristotelian world, as well as a geocentrism inspired by theology. His wri­tings continued to exert a strong influence for a long time even though some of the later scholars were not eager to endorse all of his views, especially since he had also been accused of Calvinism and atheism. Nevertheless, Korydalleas was the first teacher after the fall of Constantinople who provided a frame of reference to be available to Greek educators in the coming years; and, despite the criticism di­rected against him, he continued to teach under the aegis of the Church.

INTRODUCING THE NEW SCIENTIFIC IDEAS

Most of the second half of the 17th century and a large part of the 18th century was a period of educational and economic rejuvenation of many sectors of Greek society. In this period the Fanariots - basically the Greeks who lived in Constantinople -would playa dominant role. The beginning of ~s period is characterized by the completion of the Ottoman expansion and the creation of some of the prerequisites for the economic development of a new Hellenism. From the end of the 1 i h centu­ry, the Fanariots acquired an increasingly important role in the administration of the Ottoman state. At the outset of the 18th century, representatives of the Fanariots we­re appointed by the Sublime Porte as governors and hospodars in Wallachia and Moldavia. The Fanariots would soon take the lead among all the other Greeks dis­persed in the Balkans; their political dominance would reinforce the already strong influence of the Greeks in the economic as well as cultural spheres in these regions, while at the same time as administrators and as diplomats they would take the line commonly referred to as the enlightened despotism.

This period is characterised by three interdependent developments. First, the in­creasing involvement of this group of Greeks in the administrative affairs of the Ottoman Empire undermined the almost exclusive role of the clergy in mediating the relations of the Christians with the Court. The second characteristic of this peri­od is the increasing receptivity to the new ideas coming from Europe by the Fanari­ots, whose relative autonomy from the Patriarchate was further strengthened by an agenda of «europeanization». The third characteristic is related to the rise of a new social group. In addition to the Fanariots, the merchants started to assert themselves socially and played a rather significant role in the intellectual orientations of the pe­riod. The symbiotic relationship between the merchants and the quasi­administrative group of Fanariots was not always without conflict. Often, for exam-

50 D. DIALETIS, K. GAVROGLU, M. PATINIOTIS

pie, they were at odds concerning the exertion of influence on the Patriarchate. The social and economic prominence of these groups slowly led to the weakening, of the absolute control the Church had on the schools and in their curricula. The Fanari­ots, for example, took many initiatives for the establishment of new schools.

At the same time, the Greek scholars started moving all over Europe. Italy cea­sed to be the almost exclusive place for their studies. Greek scholars started travel­ling to the Germanic countries, Holland, and Paris. They were, thus, intellectually influenced by a multitude of traditions and schools - and that was true for their training in the natural sciences as well. Interestingly, it was during that period that we witness a strong tendency of the scholars to return home after the completion of their studies abroad.

There were, basically, two reasons favouring the return of the scholars. The first was the growing need for scholars and teachers in the schools which were being founded as a result of the economically thriving Greek communities dispersed in various regions within the Ottoman Empire and outside it. Especially after the mid-1700s there was a upsurge in the establishment of new centres of "higher educa­tion" in the Greek communities in great mercantile centres like Venice or Vienna, in Wallachia and Moldavia, in cities containing sizeable Greek administrative communities, like Bucharest and Iasi, in the Ionian Islands and in cities with large Greek communities, like Io\,!nnina, or cities on the coast of Asia Minor. Indiv~duals or groups of people, very often expatriates, gave money or bought books and equipment for these schools. In some schools, like in Chios and Milies, these en­dowments resulted in remarkable libraries. These schools, as centres of intellectual activity and as expressions of educational and patriotic philanthropy became para­digmatic of the Greek Enlightenment.

The second reason for the return of the scholars had to do with their gradual marginalization with respect to the established community of natural philosophers in Europe. Almost all of the scholars who went to Europe were churchmen having the blessings of the Patriarchate. They were among the best who had mastered the amalgamation of the ancient thought together with the teachings of the Church. In their travels to Europe, however, they found Europe quite different from what the narratives and experiences of the scholars of the preceding generation had led them to expect. During the early part of the eighteenth century they found a Europe do­minated by the ideas of the Scientific Revolution, with flourishing scientific com­munities involved in the production of original scientific work. The institutions where the Greek scholars could indulge in the all-embracing studies of philosophy, continuing the kind of education they had already acquired, were progressively de­creasing. The scholars were faced with a paralyzing dilemma: if they were to be­come part of the community of the natural philosophers in the places where they were studying, the Greek scholars had to abandon their own tradition of religious

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 51

humanism. Being ideologically unwilling and intellectually unable to proceed to such a break, they immersed themselves in the study of the new sciences with a view to returning home and assimilating them into the curriculum of religious hu­manism. A characteristic example of this attitude was the increasing desire to teach the new sciences in a manner that harmonized with the conceptions of the ancients. No wonder that almost all the books on the new theories written by Greek scholars in the eighteenth century reflected, and very often explicitly expressed, their "debt" to their ancient predecessors. This conception of an uninterrupted continuity and the perfection of ancient knowledge - a conception that was essentially adopted and promoted by the Church - was one of the basic characteristics of the Greek

scientific culture during the Enlightenment. The writings of the Greek scholars reflected three traditions, at times in conflict

with each other, at times complementing each other. These were the scholastic­Aristotelian tradition, the neo-Aristotelian tradition and the tradition of the Europe­an Enlightenment. The introduction and teaching of the sciences necessarily re­flected a synthesis of traditions which, quite often, obeyed ideological and political aims rather than complying with the dominant problematic of the natural philoso­phers of Western Europe. Of course, the Greek scholars were fully conscious of the deep influence exerted by natural philosophy on political philosophy and this was not a secondary factor in their intellectual itineraries. Finally, such an interpretative framework helps us to understand why almost every one of the scholars who had played a significant role in the introduction of the new scientific ideas in the Greek speaking regions, had written a book in philosophy or logic before publishing a scientific book. Physical, astronomical and cosmological writings give us an addi­tional probe into the character of this idiosyncratic discourse that Greek scholars developed in their attempts to introduce the new scientific ideas.

During that period the main pursuit of the Greek scholars remained the articula­tion of a philosophical discourse, within which the new ideas of the scientific re­volution would be fused with the aristotelian tradition and the Orthodox Christian ontology. In 1716, almost a century after the appointment of Theophylos Korydal­leas as the director of the Patriarchal Academy, Chrysanthos Notaras (1663-1731) published his work An introduction to the Spheres and Geography. At the time, Chrysanthos Notaras was Patriarch of Jerusalem, succeeding to his uncle Dosithe­os. Both had been particularly active in consolidating the economic and political presence of the Orthodox Greeks in the Holy Lands and in opposing the claims of the Catholic Church. Chrysanthos Notaras had started his studies at the Patriarchal Academy and, later on, in 1696, he was sent to Vienna and later to Venice and to Padua. In 1700 he visited Paris where he made astronomical observations at the Pa­ris Observatory for several months. Though he never practised as a teacher, in 1707

52 D. DIALETIS, K. GAVROGLU, M. PATINIOTIS

he proposed a program of reform for the Academy of Bucharest, which later was also used for the reforms instituted at the Academy of Iasi (1714).

Ancient Greek literature, philosophy, and the natural sciences were the main courses of that program. However, Chrysanthos Notaras proposed the teaching of philosophy according to Korydalleas' neo-aristotelian model, though he himself had already studied at European universities almost a century later. Chrysanthos' astronomy followed in Korydalleas' footprints and his aim was to advocate the ge­ocentric system as opposed to the current theories of heliocentrism. Though he ex­hibited some tolerance towards Copernicus and discussed his ideas, Chrysanthos Notaras, asa staunch follower of religious humanism, pointed out that Copernicus' ideas were nothing more than a reproduction of the cosmological model proposed by Aristarchos of Samos. In the first part of his book he briefly described the main schema of aristotelian cosmology, while in the third he developed in detail the ar­guments in favour of geocentrism and against the rival heliocentric system. His conclusive argument had to do with the absence of any internal or external cause that could account for the «circular or straightforward movement of the Earth». The absence of any possible cause was sufficient proof that the Earth remained still in the centre of the universe. Chrysanthos Notaras' conclusion was philosophico­theological rather than scientific in nature: since the Ptolemaic system could describe the celestial phenomena at least as adequately as the Copernican system could, the adoption of the former was necessitated by its agreement with the Scriptures and the senses.

This situation changed radically after about the middle of the 18th century, when a great number of the Greek scholars became supporters of the heliocentric system. That heliocentrism found quite a few adherents was not independent of the fact that the polemics against heliocentrism were no longer particularly intense. Those who were against the heliocentric system presented the alternative cosmological systems to their pupils, and came out in favour of the geocentric system, based either on the Scriptures and/or Aristotle or, as Evgenios Voulgaris did, on recent observations which could not find evidence of stellar parallax. We should also note that the Co­pernican system had a peculiar affinity to the Greek thought: many authors presen­ted the heliocentric system as originating in Pythagorean ideas. Hence, heliocen­trism could be considered as part of a national spiritual heritage -a reminder that the Church continued to be the guarantor of the traditions of the Greek nation. For that reason it was not strange to see both systems often accepted as valuable hypo­theses: though geocentrism was to be preferred, heliocentrism --to the extent that it had its origins in the ancient Greek thought- did not necessarily undermine the ontological contentions of religious humanism.

One of the adherents of heliocentrism was Iosipos Misiodax (1725 - 1800) who appears to have been fully conscious of the fact that the traditional model of the

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 53

cosmos by Aristotle had not been simply subjected to some minor changes, but had been displaced by a new and dramatically different system. In his works he presen­ted the claims of Copernicus and he also discussed the invention and role of the te­lescope, the discovery of the solar spots as well as Newton's gravitational theory. Iosipos Misiodax was born in Cernavoda, Bulgaria. He studied at the School of Mount Athos between 1754 and 1755 when Evgenios Voulgaris directed the school. Towards the end of the same decade he visited Venice, Padua, Hungary, and Vienna. In 1761 he translated and published Muratori's Moral Philosophy, in Venice. In 1765, he started his career as a teacher in the regions around the Danube where the Ottoman Court had appointed Greek governors. A committed educatio­nal reformer, his ideas were considered to be in opposition to the theology of his days; to defend himself from the attacks of his opponents, he published in 1780 his Apologia, in Venice. Though his most forceful contributions were in the field of political and social philosophy, his works contained extensive references to the re­cent attainments of the sciences.

The following year, Misiodax published the Theory of Geography, where among other topics he presented the various theories concerning the motion of the Earth. Though it was obvious that he was a strong defender of heliocentrism, he tried to safeguard himself: while he was in general agreement with the beliefs of most of the natural philosophers in the West, he continuously scrutinized the logical struc­ture of their arguments. In the same text, and in trying to moderate reaction against the presentation of heliocentrism, he wrote that heliocentrism was put forth so as «to invent new means to imitate the Pythagoreans», thus attempting to dress the new theories with the respectable cloth of antiquity.

Misiodax recognized that the place of man within the cosmos had been altered, and as a result, the order of values had changed as well. At the same time, he was aware of the course which the newer sciences had charted in moditying the tradi­tional world-view. Though Copernicus was the «glorified rejuvenator of real Astro­nom),», the breakdown of the aristotelian universe was caused by the use of the te­lescope, the discovery of sunspots, and the study of comets, which showed that the universe was uniform and homogeneous, and that there was no physical distinction between the world above and below the Moon. The culmination of his ideas was considered to be the combination of new mathematical thought with the experi­mental tradition within the framework of the Newtonian synthesis.

Misiodax ascribed to mathematics an educational merit which he had not ascri­bed to logic and metaphysics. In fact, he had accused Aristotle for undermining the interest in the study of mathematics and expressed his admiration of Galileo, Des­cartes, and Newton because, in his opinion, they restored the ancient respect for mathematics; he thus considered the teaching of mathematics together with experi­mental physics to be of great value for a modem educational curriculum.

54 D. D1ALETIS, K. GAVROGLU. M. PATINIOTIS

In his work Theory of Geography he presented the arguments for the heliocen­tric system together with the claims of the adherents of geocentrism. Although he claimed to keep equal distance from both views, his way of organizing and presen­ting the arguments clearly indicated his preferences. He started his analysis with a programmatic distinction between science and the Holy Scripture, and he was led to the rejection of all theological arguments concerning the structure of the univer­se. He, then, reconsidered the issue of the absolute reliability of the senses, which was a strong cognitive bulwark of the aristotelian thought; at the same time, he re­jected the premise that phenomena which take place below the Moon are dis­tinguished from the ones which occur above it, and he expressed his agreement with the idea that nature is homogeneous. His arguments for the Earth's motion we­re completed with an appeal to Kepler and Newton, whose laws, as he stressed, confmned and validated the heliocentric hypothesis. Misiodax adopted the ideas of the new sciences without having to devise detailed arguments against aristotelia­nism. He considered the break with the aristotelian cosmology to be the end of a whole era and established his proposals for educational reform upon the undisputed acceptance of the new image of the cosmos as put forth by contemporary science.

Another eminent scholar of the time was Evgenios Voulgaris (1716-1806), one of the more intriguing personalities of the Greek Enlightenment. He was born in Corfu and died at the age of ninety at the court of Catherine the Great. He studied in Corfu under Vikentios Damodos, an important scholar of the period. He conti­nued his studies in the School of Ioannina (a wealthy commercial town of western Greece) under Athanassios Psalidas. After he became a priest, in 1737 or 1738, he went to Italy in order to study theology, philosophy, european languages and natu­ral sciences.

In 1742, he became director of an important school in Ioannina. There he was involved in a public dispute with Balanos Vassilopoulos, who was the director of another high level school of the district, regarding their respective curricula -Voulgaris arguing for the introduction of natural philosophy. From 1753 to 1759 Voulgaris was director of the School of Mount Athos, where he worked to upgrade the level of studies. There he taught philosophy as well as mathematics. Though he was considered to be one of the most eminent teachers, his strong adherence to the new ideas provoked reaction from the religious hierarchy of Athos, and he was for­ced to abandon the school in early 1759. He then moved to the Patriarchal Acade­my, and in 1761 he permanently abandoned his educational career. The presence of Voulgaris in the various schools of the Greek speaking regions gave rise to antago­nisms because of his adherence to the new scientific ideas and his self-asserting personality.

Voulgaris wrote and translated many books on a wide variety of subjects, mainly for use in his own teaching. Most of these books remained unpublished or were pu-

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 55

blished many years after the end of his educational career, while he was living in Russia. Like most scholars of his time he launched his intellectual activity with a book on Logic (Leipzig, 1766). He continued with the publication of Elements of Metaphysics (Venice, 1805), What Philosophers Prefer (Vienna, 1805) -an amal­gam of the recent ideas of the sciences and Philosophy- and About the Universe (Vienna, 1805) where he discussed the contemporary astronomical theories. It is interesting to note that he also translated -though not published-- works of Locke, Wolff, Du Hamel, and Pourchot.

Although Voulgaris, an ordained priest, was one of the most systematic initiators of the new scientific ideas into the Greek speaking world, he remained throughout his life an adherent of the idea that the gnoseological authority of the Scriptures was much more valid than any other cognitive approach to the world. In this sense, Voulgaris typified the case of a Greek scholar who assimilated the attainments of the Enlightenment by incorporating them in a discourse within the restricted fra­mework of religious humanism. Voulgaris seems not to have recognized the radical reorientations in the study of nature brought about by the introduction and legiti­mation of experimental procedures. He was trying to combine the new theories with the teaching of the ancients, which he strongly believed to be the foundation for any modem knowledge. He refused to acknowledge the crucial role of experiment and mathematics in the new scientific discourse developed among the natural philoso­phers in Europe. In Voulgaris' view physics should derive its conclusions mainly through reasoning. It is true that in his translation of Segner's Elements of mathe­matics he underlined the necessity of algebraic knowledge for the study of the world and for the proper understanding of physics. His perception of the proposed connection of mathematics with physical inquiry, however, was restricted to a mentalist context, and in his subsequent work he tended to connect the use of ma­thematics with philosophy, following the exemplar of the ancient Greeks. As will be discussed later, the case of Veniamin Lesvios --another eminent scholar of the Greek Enlightenment- was similar to that of Voulgaris: Lesvios suggested that the application of geometry in astronomy gave the latter the quality of a science; but, although he acknowledged the contribution of analytic geometry in the formation of the modem scientific discourse, he considered it to be difficult as well as lacking in elegance and he advocated Euclidean geometry as appropriate for the education of young people.

Voulgaris' work About the Universe was written for teaching purposes and con­tained his main astronomical views. Though it was published in 1805, it is presu­med to have been completed before 1761, the year he abandoned his educational activities. When the book was published, the 89 year-old Voulgaris was a recluse at a monastery hardly communicating with anyone and, thus, it was not at all clear whether he was even asked to acquiesce in the publication of the book. It was

56 D. DIALETIS, K. GAVROGLU, M. PA TINIOTIS

mainly an amalgam of the work of various European philosophers. Voulgaris did not hesitate to recognize that the Ptolemaic system was obviously contrary both to observations and common sense. That, however, did not mean that he espoused the truth of heliocentrism. He mentioned a number of arguments expressing the lack of any sense-experience for the revolution of the Earth. His main argument, however, was of gnoseological nature and had to do with the validity of the Scriptures: though their main target is the salvation of the human soul, they also accommodate some natural truths which are able to reinforce moral teachings and reveal Divine Providence; and though the movement or stillness of the Earth is irrelevant for the salvation of the soul, we are obliged to accept the divine assurance of the Earth's stillness as the most reliable.

The Ptolemaic system was inadequate and h~liocentrism involved cognitive ob­stacles that prevented Voulgaris from accepting it; he thus preferred a third inter­pretation as the most reliable, namely the system proposed by Tycho Brache. Voul­garis was the only scholar in the Greek speaking world who embraced the Tychonic system in the middle of the eighteenth century. His argumentation, however, was not simplistic; he was fully acquainted with·the issues involved. His main objective was to confirm that the Tychonic system was in accordance with astronomical ob­servations, that it interpreted a host of phenomena that Ptolemy's system could not adequately explain, and that it was technically at least as valid as the heliocentric system. Then, since it kept the unmoving Earth at the center of the universe, the Tychonic.system was consistent with the Scriptures and, on that ground, preferable.

In 1794, the Fanariot Panagiotis Kodrikas translated Fontenelle's Entretiens sur la pluralite des Mondes. This semi-popular book discussed the idea of an infinite universe and the plurality of worlds. The translation included many notes by Kodri­kas. One would not have expected that a translation of a book written nearly a hundred years earlier would be a high priority. Yet, Kodrikas chose to translate it so that he could include his extensive "explanatory" notes which in fact amounted to a parallel text. The translation provoked a strong attack against the followers of heliocentrism, and fmally was condemned by the Church - not because of the ideas of Fonte nelle, but because of the translator's comments which were in explicit conflict with the traditional values of religious humanism: he did not hesitate to write against ''those who due to superstitious ignorance do not acknowledge the established truths of the Copernican system." With Kodrikas' translation we have, for the first time, definite recognition of the role of the founders of modem physics (with the exception of Galileo who does not seem to be so dear to the Greek scho­lars of the time): it is noted that while Copernicus had, in fact, put the Sun in the centre, he had not changed the structure of the cosmos, and that Descartes had bro­ken away from the Aristotelian world-view; fmally, the significance of Newton's synthesis is brought to surface.

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 57

The French Revolution did not sit well with the Fanariots' political agenda. Many of them considered the Revolution and its consequences as endangering their prospects of increasing influence within the Ottoman Empire. As the French Revo­lution was more and more projected as the realization of the political and social ideas of the Enlightenment, the Fanariots' belief in and attachment to the ideas of the Enlightenment started to weaken. Also, as the anticlericalist positions of the Revolution were associated with the spirit of the Enlightenment, many scholars -who, as we stressed, were men of the Church - became less and less willing to be identified with the ideas of the Enlightenment. Naturally, we are not talking of a ra­dical change which was adopted by all concerned: quite a few scholars, especially teachers, continued to remain strong adherents of the new scientific ideas. Howe­ver, we do stress a change of heart among many scholars in their strong backing of the ideas of the Enlightenment, which, as a result, allowed a greater leverage to tho­se in the Church who were strong opponents of these ideas from the very begin­ning.

This rather mixed situation and change in the mood of the scholars was quite evident in attempted changes in school curricula. That is displayed in a very typical way at the Megali tou Genous Scholi (a continuation of the Patriarchal Academy). During 1778-1801, the director of the school was Sergios Makreos, who remained faithful to the traditional educational system of the school. He reacted against the proposed reforms and was not even willing to include in the curriculum the books of V oulgaris, who was Makreos' teacher and for whom he felt great respect.

Makreos was born around 1740 and died in 1819. His education was entirely within the Greek speaking areas of the Ottoman Empire. He attended classes at the School of Agrafa (a mountainous region of central Greece) and then he went to the School of Athos under Voulgaris. He completed his studies under Voulgaris at the Patriarchal Academy in Constantinople. During his directorship he taught Aristotle according to Korydalleas' system, and though he was proud of being Voulgaris' student he refused to bring into the curriculum the new sciences and philosophy, because he believed that they would lead to the breakdown of traditional social va­lues.

In 1797 he published A Trophy from the Greek panoply against the followers of

Copernicus. Makreos seems not to have been acquainted with the course of events and conceptual changes which led to the final Newtonian form of the heliocentric theory. By attacking Copernicanism he attacked all the new astronomical theories -among them the infmiteness of the universe and the inhabitation of the stars. Ma­kreos' arguments against heliocentrism were not predominantly "scientific"; instead he stressed the social repercussions of each model: the overthrow of the traditional hierarchical and static world expressed by geocentrism would entail the downfall of social hierarchy.

58 D. DIALETIS, K. GAVROGLU, M. PATlNIOTlS

Makreos attempted through a number of syllogisms to discredit Newton's theory of gravitation. He considered that the motion of every body was determined by the outcome of two forces, the centripetal and the centrifugal. He discussed two cases. The first was when both forces are applied to the same body specifically to the Earth. According to the Aristotelian viewpoint centripetal force is natural whereas centrifugal motion is violent. But again according to Aristotle it is impossible for a body to execute natural and violent motion at the same time. Hence there is a con­tradiction. In the second case one of the forces is applied to the Earth and the other to the Sun. The net result of this situation would be for the Earth to be attracted and repelled by the Sun at the same time. According to Makreos this has the following consequences. Either the Earth will move in a straight line and there will be no re­ason for it to revolve or, if the two forces are equal in strength, then the Earth will be motionless for ever. Makreos concludes that the law of universal attraction can­not justify the heliocentric system. It is important to underline the qualitative cha­racter of his arguments as well as his disregard of the law of inertia. Of course, Ma­kreos had a rather shrewd strategy: he used the most «quantitative» of Newton's laws and showed that on Aristotelian premises it is self-contradictory and cannot lead to what Makreos considered as unquestionabe qualitative characteristics of the cosmos.

The way he developed his arguments clearly shows his intention to work within a pre-determined cosmological schema. At the same time, he presented an analysis of the gnoseological preconditions for heliocentrism, which, in effect, comprised the main part of his book. He adopted the main points of the Aristotelian world­view and rejected the image of an infinite, homogeneous world implied by the new astronomy. He tried to restore the validity of sensory experience and proposed sim­plicity as the criterion for the correctness of astronomical theories. Furthermore, he questioned the validity of astronomical observation together with the reliability of "mathematical instruments". He claimed that we cannot determine what is happen­ing in the sky from what we observe from beneath the Moon, because these are two different realms with two different classes of phenomena.

Makreos was committed to defending the aristotelian world-view within the context determined by the Orthodox Christian faith. A difficulty here was that Aristotle's views on the eternity and self-motion of matter could be interpreted as rendering the act of Creation unnecessary. For this reason, part of Makreos' task was attempting to explain that matter is created and it is passive. Creating it and putting it into movement demanded the mediation of the highest power and of the eternal energy of God. By placing cosmology within this context Makreos was stressing, at the same time, the cognitive limits of man. There is no way for knowledge to surpass the limit imposed by the relationship between humans and their Creator. Therefore, knowledge should always be subjected to the truth of the

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 59

sacred Scriptures. Almost two hundred years after Galileo and his telescope, Ma­kraios remained an aristotelian by totally rejecting the possibility of even a partial updating of traditional cosmology.

***

From the middle of the 18th century, economic well being of the Greek communi­ties within the Ottoman Empire with the accompanying social transformations brought about a number of changes in the educational system. The reception and appropriation of the new scientific ideas went on within an environment of social unrest and ideological confrontations. One cannot talk about educational reform, since the attempts were local initiatives rather than a centrally dictated policy to be applied to a homogeneous educational system. While in the seventeenth and at the beginning of the eighteenth centuries all schools were religiously oriented, the co­ming years saw the emergence of schools whose curriculum could cater for the so­cial and political agendas of the merchants or the Greeks involved in the admini­stration of the Ottoman state. The systematic introduction of the sciences was rein­forced by renewed faith in man's ability to acquire knowledge of the world with his own means, and all these found support in the expectations of the assertive mer­chants and in the political ambitions of the Greek officers of the Danube region.

Within this context, there was a gradual re-definition of the teachers' role. The image of the teacher-priest whose work was a religious mission gave way to ano­ther kind of scholar: the great majority of these teachers were priests, but their edu­cational agenda became more secular and their actual work tended to be more «professional». The scholastic and grandiloquent teaching of the works of the Fa­thers of the Orthodox Church, of ancient Greek literature and of Aristotle, gave way to a curriculum determined through negotiations with the community which had established and catered for the schools. Teaching began to serve the social, po­litical, and ideological «priorities» of these communities. These changes strengthe­ned the relative autonomy of the scholars from the Patriarchate and reinforced their role as independent scholars.

At the end of the eighteenth century, the introduction of Enlightenment ideas in the schools became the subject of social negotiation. For many Greek scholars the European nation states represented a model, while at the same time they provided the ideological background for a new political discourse in the Greek speaking world. The methods for the introduction of knowledge were changing, because, as the scholars were progressively realizing, the knowledge to be introduced was of a new kind. Teaching had to become pleasant and attractive in order to cultivate cu­riosity and independent thinking. Visual means supplemented texts: maps, globes, experimental instruments, experimental demonstrations themselves became the pri-

60 D. D1ALETIS, K. GAVROGLU. M. PA TIN IOTIS

de of teachers. Constantinos Koumas (I 777-1831) claimed to be the first teacher who conducted physical and chemical experiments at the Philological Gymnasium of Smyrna, in 1812. Philosophy became part of the educational process as a source of social ethics and good reasoning. Thus, observation, experience, the cultivation of good reasoning, and the fight against superstition became the main educational objectives, necessary for combatting ignorance and bringing progress according to the promises of the new sciences.

The cultivation of the sciences was aiming at the integration of the Greek spea­king populations into the group of European nations, its other objective being the strengthening of the secular power to counterbalance the Church. At the same time, the natural sciences appeared to be the answer to the social demand for craftsmen­technicians, and for improving the efficiency of the merchants' dealings with their counterparts in Europe. The publication of commercial handbooks and the estab­lishment of progressive schools were also expressing that trend, with the clear ob­jective, at least of some merchant groups, of undermining and discrediting the tra­ditional educational system.

During the whole of the eighteenth century and until the Greek Revolution of 1821, there was no branch of the natural sciences -with the exception of medici­ne- organised into a distinctive cognitive field with institutional autonomy. The scholars who were dealing with the newest scientific ideas were differentiated on the basis of their general ideological and political affinities; only medical doctors tended to become a separate profession. The work of the rest of the Greek scholars had social aims within the framework of the interests of various social groups and this is the reason why scientific discourse appeared in the context of a more general political agenda. The ideas that had originated during the scientific revolution were viewed more as an educational activity responsive to certain social demands or contemplative quests, and less as a method for practical research. They were knowledge to be acquired, not a method for producing new knowledge. In the Greek speaking regions, we cannot trace a trend whereby scientific practice is transformed into a socially structured activity having as its main element the empi­rical-let alone experimental-study of nature.

Nevertheless, towards the end of the eighteenth century the number of published scientific books began to increase. Greek scholars started writing and translating a large number of scientific works to be published in cities like Venice and Vienna. A common practice was the dedication of the works to eminent persons of the Greek speaking world. Dedication was part of the politics of patronage. On the part of the writer this politics aimed at legitimating his work and his ideas expressed through it. The most important element of this practice, however, was the promo­tion of specific social values: the cultivation of literature and the arts, of virtue and piety, as well as the dissemination of political visions for the benefit of the nation.

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS ntH AND 18TH CENTURIES 61

A point to be stressed is that the scholars seemed equally interested in legitimating the content of their own work and in a more general social programme within which their work would find its place.

The readership for these scientific works became progressively more diversified. In the middle of the eighteenth century, scholars like Nikiforos Theotokis and Evgenios Voulgaris were writing for specific cultivated audiences. Their books pu­blished in the decade of 1760 addressed their readers as «friends of the sciences». Towards the end of the eighteenth century, however, the authors started addressing their readers in a more general way, without attributing specific qualities to them. The phrases <<to the Greeks» or «Philhellenes» also appeared at this time. The word «Greek» together with a reference to «nation» still retained the meaning of «learner of (ancient) Greek» or «educated person» as it had in the middle of the century; a widening of the meaning, however, was now taking place; the word acquired cultu­ral connotations related to the collective consciousness of the Greek speaking Or­thodox Christians of the Balkans. This widening brought about changes in the idea of science, its role, and its cultivation. «To the reader» was a common address in the prefaces of scientific books of the time suggesting that expectation of the «uprising of the nation» could also be helped through scientific education. Such an address implied the idea of education as a key element in the concept of citizen. In this situation, the «development» of science meant its spread to as many people as possible: Though not everybody was capable of practising science -since that was a matter of specialization-- everyone did have the potential to acquire scie,ntific knowledge for the enlightenment and happiness of the nation. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the question was raised as to who would have the authority to decide about the soundness of the different scientific conclusions, Greek scholars gave an answer characteristic of the way they had perceived the ideas of the scientific revolution: While in the West the newer scientific discourse was already formulated as a network of regulatory principles handled by a structu­red scientific community, the Greek scholars considered the general literate public to be a legitimate judge of scientific knowledge. The <<principles of science» were considered to be sufficient knowledge for anyone to take part on an equal basis in a discussion with the natural philosophers in the west, since exploration of natural is­sues demanded nothing more than good reasoning and common sense.

The ambivalent attitude towards the Enlightenment after the French Revolution was registered in the various schools of the Greek speaking areas of the Ottoman Empire. One example was the school at Kydonies in Asia Minor. The man who played an important role there was Veniamin Lesvios (1762-1824), who studied Mathematics and Physics at Pisa and Paris during 1789-99. In Paris, Lesvios met Adamantios Korais (1748 - 1833) -the <<theoretician» par excellence of the Greek Enlightenment- and was deeply influenced by his views. Lesvios proceeded to a

62 D. DIALETIS, K. GAVROGLU, M. PATINIOTIS

number of refonns and during his directorship (1802/3-1812), the school acquired the reputation of the best school for science. There, Lesvios taught the new Physics and -something quite unique-- the heliocentric system per se; he also taught Philosophy and Mathematics. However, during his years at Kydonies, Lesvios was accused of introducing dangerous innovations through his scientific teaching, and rejecting divine incarnation. He was, thus, forced to defend his own religious or­thodoxy to the Patriarchate, though he was not asked to deny his scientific beliefs. Living, however, in a period in which the Ecumenical Patriarchate had officially expressed its opposition to the new ideas of natural philosophy -because of their ideological and political implications-- he did not succeed in defending the ortho­doxy of his beliefs, and he was condemned by the Holy Synod. In 1819, he left Ky­donies and went to the Peloponese, to take part in the uprisings of the Greek Re­volution.

Before proceeding with the examination of Lesvios' physical philosophy, we should note the emergence ofa distinct anti-European trend in the early years of the 19th century. Athanassios Parios was the most characteristic representative of this trend. Parios had spend some years at Mount Athos and had then become a teacher of Greek. He taught at the school of Chios, an island near the coast of Asia Minor, in the same years that Veniamin Lesvios was teaching at the school of Kydonies. Because of his extreme conservatism, many scholars of that period attacked him and students gradually started to abandon the school, moving to the school of Ky­donies. Parios had some general knowledge of physics which he had acquired from the classical treatises and the comnlentaries on Aristotle's physics. He was the wri­ter of a polemical book called Response published in Trieste in 1802. The full title of this work speaks for itself «Response to the frenetic zeal of the philosophers who come from Europe; exposing the vanity and folly of their lamentable efforts exerted upon our Race and teaching which is the real and true philosophy. To which is ad­ded a salutary admonition to those who recklessly send their sons to Europe on business». The Christian, declared Parios, should not examine the secrets of the creation of the material world, because in this way we are able to reach only hypo­theses and not proven conclusions. For that reason the mathematical sciences are the source of godlessness because they Feate an illusion of certitude.

Let us now discuss the work of Lesvios and especially his naVTaX'lKiv'lTOV (The All-Mover). This «theory» is a paradigmatic case in support of our main conten­tion. It is a work whose structure and argumentation is incommensurate with the dominant scientific problematic of the period and, at the same time, a characteristic example of an attempt to fonn an alternative scientific discourse. It was never pu­blished but was systematically taught; Lesvios' manuscript, in which he developed the theory and discussed physics and astronomy, dates from a few years before 1800.

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 63

Lesvios had serious objections to the validity of Newton's ftrst law. He could not accept that bodies, left to themselves, would continue to preserve their kinetic identity. He maintained that the motion of bodies left to themselves would run down. In other words, he disagreed with what had been accepted as the constitutive aspect of the new physics: The principle that force is necessary to change the di­rection of motion. For Lesvios, it was the initiation of motion that required force. He went on to explain the revolution of the planets through the assertion of an ef­fluvium (TlavraX1lT<:fvrrrov) which is emitted from and absorbed into the bodies in proportion to their mass. From this schema it followed that the body with the lar­gest mass (the sun) must be at the centre. The equilibrium of forces as a result of absorbed and emitted effiuvia maintains the stability of the distance of the planets from the sun, the rotation of the sun on its axis guarantees the revolution of the pla­nets around the sun, and the difference in intensity between the effiuvium of the sun and that of a planet, when these «meeb> and create a kind of vortex near the planet, gives the latter a rotation on its axis.

Newton's ftrst law was not merely a synthesis of the various issues related to in­ertia. Equally important, it formed part the context of consensus about the ways the new physics would be practised. The ftrst law dictates the study of the changes in the direction of motion and precludes the search for the causes of motion. Even if at the beginning of the 18th century natural philosophers did not all agree on the range and the character of the legitimate questions to be asked within the framework of the new physics, by the time Lesvios was formulating these ideas there was no doubt about the kind of questions natural philosophers were allowed to ask. Lesvi­os' problematic and his methodology made up a program for understanding the metaphysical foundations of physics; in this respect, Lesvios' agenda was much closer to the programs of Leibniz and Kant. Certainly his difficulties in accepting action-at-a-distance were quite decisive in formulating his theory of TlavraX1lKiv1lrov. But he must have been also influenced by the generally favoura­ble climate in Europe concerning the heuristic value of the imponderable fluids. But even if we grant that Lesvios' belief in these fluids may not have been under­mined by the developments in chemistry and the recent explanation of oxidation, the way he developed his theoretical schema was qualitative, and aimed at explai­ning what was already known and observed; nowhere did he indicate the possibility of either a new phenomenon to be associated with his schema or a quantitative pre­diction which could be measured.

Lesvios had been educated in Europe and in his writings we witness a quite sys­tematic knowledge of what the state of science was. How are we to understand what he was attempting to do? How can we understand the rejection of Newton's laws and his theory of gravitation and, at the same time, the adoption of the heliocentric system? What should we make of his preference of demonstrations rather than of

64 D. DIALETIS, K. GA VROGLU, M. PATINIOTIS

experiments? And how are these to be contextualized when we know that he was one of the ablest teachers, by no means a charlatan with this idiosyncratic universal theory?

Lesvios attempted to articulate a form of discourse with the following characte­ristics. Based on metatheoretical elements of the dominant schemata in physics (the imponderable fluids and/or heliocentrism) and on a still unanswered difficulty about Newton's theory of gravitation (action at a distance) he proceeded to the formulation of a philosophical system where the foundational principles would lead to the explanation of as many phenomena as possible. Thus it is not strange that he rejects Newton and adopts heliocentrism. It is, also, not strange that he, and especi­ally his student Kairis, extend his theory to include human feelings as well -in fact, such a theory must be able to be extended in such a direction. Lesvios develo­ped his theory of Ilav7:aX1JKivYf!ov within a framework of what he considered as physics and astronomy and not as part of his metaphysics. In other words, Lesvios' physics is neither a popular or didactic presentation nor a piece whose purpose is to inform about the developments in the west. Viewed as an alternative theory within the framework of the scientific discourse as formed in the west, Lesvios' agenda has no legitimation whatsoever. But if it is seen as an attempt to propose an alter­native to the (western) scientific discourse - a philosophical rather than a scienti­fic discourse - then his whole program appears considerably less idiosyncratic.

Lesvios' work is a typical case of appropriation of the new scientific ideas into the cultural milieu of the Greek speaking regions. His work cannot be interpreted if the dominant methodological tool and historical category we use is that of trans­mission. It is, no doubt, the case that many ideas had been introduced into the Greek speaking regions by ways which can be perfectly well understood through the use of the concept of transmission. These are the easy and straightforward cases. However, the effectiveness of a methodological tool is measured by the pos­sibilities it provides for the understanding of what appears to be exceptional - in this case, what appears to be a capricious, superficial and «less than scientific» the­ory by a well educated scholar. Thus, during this period a number of issues were re­formulated in order to be appropriated within a context determined by a number of philosophical needs, ideological outlooks, and political imperatives. The appropri­ation of the new scientific ideas called for the formation of the necessary discourse which appeared to reflect the network of constraining localities.

During the time that Veniamin Lesvios was teaching at Kydonies, another emi­nent scholar was the director of one of the most famous schools in the Greek spea­king regions. This was Constantinos Koumas, director of the Philological Gymna­sium of Smyrna in the western coast of Asia Minor. As director, he was responsible for the teaching of scientific courses. The Philological Gymnasium of Smyrna was one of the most important educational centres of the Greek speaking regions in the

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 65

last period of the Ottoman Empire; thus, it is interesting to see how the role of sciences in the social context of the time was reflected in the curriculum of the school.

Constantinos Koumas was born in 1777 and was one of the Greek scholars who practised teaching as a profession and not as a part of their religious vocation. He was very interested in mathematics1Tom his early years. After a short period of te­aching, he went to Vienna, in 1804, where he completed his studies and published various scientific works. Koumas had a doctorate 'in Philosophy and Fine Arts at the University of Leipzig and was a member of the Royal Academies of Berlin and Munich. In 1809 he was invited to Smyrna to take over the Philological Gymnasi­um; he remained there up to 1814, and then went to Constantinople to take over the directorship of the Patriarchal Academy.

Under his directorship, the school in Smyrna became famous, especially be­cause of his methods of teaching the physical sciences: the «mysterious instru­ments» used in classes attracted a great number of wealthy Greeks, who sent their children to study at the Philological Gymnasium of Smyrna, while the Evangelic School, another important school in Smyrna with theological orientation, gradually declined. Nevertheless, in the Philological Gymnasium itself, a current of opposi­tion to the introduction of scientific ideas and the secular orientation of the curri­culum gathered momentum, especially after Koumas' departure. The scholars who advocated the conservative policy of the Patriarchate reacted to the liberal policy of the merchants, who continued to support the introduction of the innovative ideas in the intellectual life of the Greek speaking populations. As a result, in 1819, during a major political disturbance in Smyrna, a violent crowd set fire to the Philological Gymnasium.

The teaching of the sciences remained the main axis of the curriculum at the Philological Gymnasium of Smyrna. A key argument for the introduction of scienti­fic courses was the need for scientific knowledge to return to its birthplace. Kou­mas in his translation of Pierre August Adet's Chemistry, in 1808, defmed che­mistry so broadly, and made such an ad hoc interpretation of Aristotle's texts, that he was able to conclude that the ancient Greeks were the real initiators of current chemistry. For Koumas, in fact, it was impossible for ancient Greeks, who had de­veloped every other science and art, not to have developed chemistry as well.

In 1812, Koumas published A Synopsis of Physics in which he also developed his educational program: «According to the ancients, Philosophy was divided into three parts, Logic, Ethics, Physics. Every kind of science and art is reduced to these three genres of Philosophy. Whoever intends to lead a good life in society should not ignore any of these partS». In defining Physics, however, he was more inte­rested in the development of a visual teaching method than in teaching a method for scientific research. Physics was the science <<that teaches us about the phenomena,

66 D. DIALETlS, K. GAVROGLU, M. PATINIOTIS

as well as the reasons or forces which cause them». Though experiment and obser­vation were considered as the key methods of research, the whole concept was clo­ser to an Aristotelian qualitative interpretation of the phenomena than to the quan­titative study of nature and the derivation of mathematically formulated conclu­sions. It should be pointed out that the school in Smyrna acquired its fame -among other things-- because of the physical and chemical demonstrations that were conducted by Koumas, who also supplied the school with maps and globes. But these were not experiments related to any kind of original scientific research; they were rather repetitions of the demonstrations of phenomena, which had already been studied by the natural philosophers in the west. Thus, though Koumas stressed the usefulness of experimental research, in his pedagogical practice the separation of experimentation from mathematics, and from the quantitative evaluation of its results, dissociated it from its specific heuristic role within the scientific discourse developed in Europe.

At the time that Koumas published A Synopsis of Physics, Constantinos Var­dalachos, another important scholar, published his Experimental Physics. This work consisted of a collection of his analytic notes for the courses he had been te­aching in the sciences at the Academy of Bucharest. Vardalachos makes a distinc­tion between mathematical physics, «which is proven by geometry and calculation» and experimental physics «which is proven by the phenomena [i.e. observations]» -justifying, in a way, the elimination of mathematics from his teachings. In the beginning of the nineteenth century, even though the introduction of physics in the curricula of the modem Greek schools was considered one of the main intellectual innovations, the almost exclusive use of qualitative interpretations allowed it to be kept within an aristotelian context. The notion of experiment and observation was unrelated to the way experiments were being conducted by the scientific commu­nity in the West during the same period. For Greek scholars, experiments were de­monstrations intended to motivate students and to convince them of the validity of the qualitative interpretations concerning the origins of various phenomena. The use of experiment for the discovery of new phenomena and/or for the quantitative survey of the natural world, as was the case with the western natural philosophy. was outside their scope.

FINAL COMMENTS

Let us summarize some of the salient aspects of these developments. It appears that a standard approach, with the emphasis on understanding the

formation and function of social institutions such as patronage and the academies, is inadequate in the case of the Greek speaking populations during the 17th and, especially, the 18th century. We want to understand the ways the new scientific

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 67

ideas were introduced and established in a region which was part of the Ottoman Empire. The jurisdiction of the Church over educational matters, its initiatives for sending scholars to Europe to be educated and the kind of dynamics created as the intended and, most interestingly, the unintended result of their scholarly work -whether by writing books or teaching - all need to be assessed within the overall particularities of the Greek case. A number of complicated issues will also have to be taken into consideration. The ambivalence of the Church towards the shifting philosophical allegiances and the ideological orientations of the scholars; the rela­tions of the Church with the Ottoman administration; the relations between the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the other (autonomous) Patriarcha­tes each facing different problems of their own (e.g. the Moscow Patriarchate and the initiatives for modernization by the new ruling classes of the 18th century); the relations of the Orthodox Church with the Holy See and the Protestant world; the interests of the prominent and rich laymen at Constantinople, often in conflict with those elsewhere in the Balkans.

It was accepted by all that the Patriarchate had absolute responsibility in formu­lating the long term educational policies and articulating the ideological agenda for a synthesis between hellenism and Orthodoxy. This did not mean that the ensuing developments went smoothly as implementations of the original programmatic di­rections. There appeared many different trends, each claiming ideological or politi­cal leadership of this process aimed at preserving religious identity and inspiring national consciousness. These trends were at times in conflict with each oth~ and at times complementary. Scholars following the scholastic aristotelian tradition co­existed with neo-aristotelians. Scholars adopting the ideas of the Enlightenment came into conflict with those who viewed these ideas as undermining the conditions for religious and ideological survival. The introduction of the sciences and their subsequent teaching necessarily reflected a confluence of all these trends. The glo­rious developments of the new sciences in western Europe became an interesting but expected corroboration of the programmatic declarations of Aristotle. Social groups who found confidence in the ideas coming from Europe for their political future, turned against the ideas of the Enlightenment after the French Revolution. Issues related to national consciousness of the Hellenic population became separa­ble from issues related to theological questions; religious humanism could no lon­ger contain the antagonisms. The Patriarchate reflected and conditioned these changes. Progressively it became less receptive to ideas and policies that it had welcomed about two centuries earlier. But there again, it had mostly achieved what it had set out to do.

One of the difficulties in trying to analyse the newly emerging community of scholars in the Greek-speaking regions has to do with the relative lack of consensus among the scholars as to the constitutive discourse of the community. The study of

68 D. DIALETIS, K. GAVROGLU, M. PATINIOTIS

the emergence of the scientific community in the various countries of Western Eu­rope deals with the ways a group of people managed to reach a consensus as to the discourse they were to use in discussing, disputing, agreeing and communicating their results in the new field. In the Greek speaking regions, from the first decades of the eighteenth century until well into the nineteenth century, the discourse that the scholars developed was substantially different from that of their colleagues in Western Europe. The (expected) social role of the scholars and their ideological prerogatives legitimated a discourse which was predominantly philosophical. Fur­thermore, there appear to be additional reasons for the emergence of such a dis­course. Firstly, there were neither internal nor external factors to precipitate a crisis with aristotelianism and, therefore, no need to reformulate, let alone initiate, a break with aristotelianism. Secondly, the dominant mode the scholars wished to establish was a kind of logic with had strong ethical implications related to the rules of correct argumentation. Thirdly, although these scholars appeared quite sympa­thetic to experiments, what they considered to be experiments was hardly different from demonstrations. The emphasis, usually indirect but often explicit, was about the use of the new material for (re)shaping philosophical arguments. Most impor­tantly, there was a lack of emphasis concerning the crucial relation between theory and experiment. It is quite remarkable that in almost all the books where there is mention of experiments the emphasis is on observation and (qualitative) results, rather than on the process of measurement and dealing with numbers. In more than one place one fmds passages to the effect that "rational thought is not less effective than experimental results".

The introduction of the new scientific ideas in the Greek speaking societies was a process almost exclusively directed to their appropriation for educational purpo­ses. The apparent aim was to modernize the school curricula, but this did not mean a neutral attitude as to the possible ideological uses of these new ideas -especially the need to establish contact with the heritage of ancient Greece. The appropriation of the new scientific ideas necessarily involves a remade discourse which reflects the network of local constraints. As we have attempted to show, the appropriation of ideas refer to the ways devised to overcome cultural resistance and make the new ideas compatible with local intellectua,l traditions. Hence, understanding the cha­racter of the resistance to the new scientific ideas becomes of paramount importan­ce. In the case of the Greek speaking regions the issue of resistance cannot be dis­cussed independent of the character of the break with the ancient Greek thought. The ideological and political contingencies of Christian societies under Ottoman rule during the Enlightenment, together with the dominance of the Greek scholars in the Balkans, called for an emphasis not on the break with the ancient modes of thought, but rather, on establishing the continuity with ancient Greece. The Greek scholars saw the new developments in the sciences in Europe as evidence of the tri-

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 69

umph of the programmatic declarations of the ancient Greek thought with its emp­hasis on the supremacy of mathematics and rationality, rather than a break with the ancient mode of thinking and the legitimation of a new way of dealing with nature. The developments in the sciences were not viewed as an intricate process which among other things involved a break with Aristotle, but rather, as developments which came to verify the truth of the pronouncements of the ancients. In addition, there were differences resulting from the respective overall social functions of the scholars in the centre and the periphery. But the development of such a discourse was also suitable for supporting the overall political agenda. The problem under consideration here was the introduction of the new scientific ideas to a national community which was under occupation and which had no national state institu­tions of its own. This is a very unusual situation: in the absence of national state in­stitutions, the community lacked the conditions which would allow the effective­ness of the educational system and of the training of students in these sciences to be socially assessed. Lacking such a corroborative framework where the usefulness of these sciences would be under continuous vigilance, ideological and, in fact, philo­sophical considerations became the dominant preoccupation of the scholars. Hence, the embedding of all these new ideas within a philosophical context strongly at va­riance with that of the European scholars became an aim in itself; there was no other sense in which the new ideas could be legitimated.

Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Athens University, Greece

SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Argyropoulou Roxane D., "Traductions en Grec modeme d' ouvrages philosophiques (1760-1821)" Revue des etudes sud-est Europeennes, X, 1972, 363-372.

Cavamos c., Modern Greek Thought, Belmont, Mass., 1969. The emphasis is on the philo­sophical ideas of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Batalden Stephen K., Catherine II's Greek Prelate. Eugenios Voulgaris in Russia, 177/-1806, East European Monographs, Boulder, NY, 1982.

Demos Raphael, "The Neo-Hellenic Enlightenment (1750-1821). A general Survey", Jour­nal of the History of Ideas 19, 1958,523-541.

Dimaras C. Th. La Grece au temps des Lumieres, Geneve, Librairie Droz, 1969.

Henderson G.P. "Greek Philosophy from 1600 to 1850", The Philosophical Quarterly 5, 1955,157-165.

Henderson G.P., The Revival of Greek Thought 1620-1830, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1970.

Herig Gunnar, Okumenisches Patriarchat und europaische Potitik 1620-1638, Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1968.

70 D. DlALETIS, K. GAVROGLU, M. PATINIOTIS

Kitromilides, P.M., Enlightenment, Nationalism, Orthodoxy: Studies in the culture and po­litical thought o/south-eastern Europe, Variorum, Aldershot, 1994.

Pallis AA, The Phanariots. A Greek Aristocracy under Turkish Rule, London 1951.

Papaderos AI., Metakenosis. Das kulturelle Zentralproblem des neuen Griechenlands bei Korais und Oikonomos, Mainz 1962.

Tsourkas CI., Les debuts de I 'enseignement philosophique et la fibre pensee dans les Bal­kans. La vie et I 'oeuvre de Theophile COlydalee (J 570-1646) 2nd ed. Thessaloniki, 1967.

Voumvlinopoulos G.E., Bibliographie Critique de la Philosophie Grecque depuis la chute de Constantinople a nos jours 1453-1953, Athens, 1966.

BIBLIOGRAPHY IN GREEK

AyytAoo A. m.u.rwvoe; TvXat (H ).o}'w lfapu.r50urt rmJV ToupKoKparia) [Wanderings of Plato. The scholarly tradition during the Ottoman occupation]. Ae~va 1963.

AyytAou A, 'To XPOVIKO TIl<; AetJ.lVlaba<;" [The chronicle of the school at Mount Athos]. Ni:a Emia, Xplmouyevva, Ae~va 1963.

AnomoAOnouAo<; tl. f., 'Tla Tllv npo'imopia TOU NEOl;MllV1KOU tlW<jltJ.lnaflou. LTOlXEia <1>umoAoyia<; TOV 170 atwva mllv KtJ.lvmavnVounoAll" [About the prehistory of the Neo­hellenic Enlightenment. Elements of physiology in Constantinople during the 17th century], Oepavurri!e;, II, 1974,296-310.

fa~poyAou K., "01 EJIlm~flE<; mov NWEMllV1KO tlla<jl(t)TlaflO Kat npO~A~flaTa EPflllvEia<; TOU<;" [The sciences during the Neohellenic Enlightenment and problems in their interpre­tation], NWI1le;. 3, 1995, 75-86.

fEbEWV M., H lfVWJ.WTlKi! Kiv'lurt rou ri:voue; Karu. roy 1'1' Kat Ie' aUJJVa [The intellectual ac­tivities of the nation during the 18th and 19th centuries], editors A Ayytl.ou - <1>. HAlOU, Epfl~<;. Ae~va, 1976.

fdiEWV M .. XpOVIKU. r'le; DarpwPXIKi!c; AKac5'1J.da~- [The chronicle of the Patriarchal Acad­emy], Constantinople 1883.

fpuO'onouAo<; T. A. naTpWpX1K~ MEyaA'1 TOU ftvou<; LXOA~, [The Patriarchal Academy], 2 volumes, Ae~va 1966.

tlllflapa<; K.G., NeodAYfVIKOe; LlwrpwTl(JfJOe; [The Neohellenic Enlightenment], Epfl~<;. Ae~va 1989.

Kapa<; f .. 1>UI1lKi:e; Kat eenKi:e; elflurilfJee; mov ell'lvlKO 180 atwva [The physical and posi­tive sciences during the Greek 18th century], Gutenberg, 1977.

KovliUAll<; n., 0 Neoell'lVIKOe; LlwrpwTl(JfJOe; - 01 rpIAO(JOrpIKi:e; [Mee; [The Neohellenic En­lightenment -the philosophical ideas], GEfl£lclO, Ae~va 1988.

Kplflna<;, K., "0 tlap~lVtafl6<; O'TI]v EMuba. Ta npwTa ~~flaTU" [Darwinism in Greece. The first steps] , in epav(JfJara Karo7fTpou, GEfltAlO, Ae~va 1993. pp. 81-108.

Mm;vUKllt; 1\., "Ano Tllv lmopia TOU flETU~u;avnvou aplmoTEA10'flOU mov EMllvlKO Xcllpo. Afl<jlta~~TllO'TJ Kat unEpUO'JIlall TOU <jllAOaO<jlOn mov 180 at. N1KOJ.ao<; ZEPi;OuAll<;-tltJ.lpOew<; I\ta~lO<;". [From the history ef the post-byzantine aristotelianism in the Greek region. Doubting and defending the philosopher in the \8'h century. Nikolaos Zerzoulis -Dorotheos Lesvios], 1>IAo(Jorpia, 7,1977,416-454.

N1KoAa'il)ll<; E .. tlwAE"Clls tl., Aeavamul)'1<; H., "TonoA-oyia TtJ.lV ~1~AitJ.lv TtJ.lV eE"C1KWV Kat <jlumKWV EJIlO'TI]IlWV TOU npOEnavamanKOlJ at(lwa (1750-1821)" [Typology of the books of

SCIENCES IN THE GREEK SPEAKING REGIONS 17TH AND 18TH CENTURIES 71

physical and positive sciences during 1750-1821], Tcrpo.bla Epyo.(Jio.r;, 8, K{;VTpO N£OI;M.T]VIKWV Ep£uvwv, ASi]va 1986.

ITa1ta061touA.o~ 8avacrT)~, H veoeM~vIK~ IfIlAO(Jorpio. wro rov 160 i:wr; rov 180 WWvo. [The N eohellenic philosophy from the 16t to the 18th century], I. Zaxap61touA.o~, ASi]va 1988.

ITa1tavoutcro~ E.IT., (editor) NeodAytVIK~ cf>IAO(Jorpio. [Neohellenic philosophy], BamKi] BI~A.toSi]KT], ASi]va, 2 volumes 1953, 1957.

ITapav(Ka~ MU1:Sa(o~, IXebio.(JJ.w lrepi rytr; ev rw eMytvlKW i:Bvel Ko.ro.mo.(Jewr; rwv ypo.fl.fl.o.rwv o.lrO Tytr; ruw(Jewr; rytr; Kwvmo.vnvovlrOhwr; fl.i:XPI Tytr; evemw(Jytr; eKavroerytpibor; [Outline ofthe situation concerning the state ofletters from the fall of Constantinople to the present century], Constantinople 1867.

~aSa~ K., NeoeMytvlKl/ cf>IAoAoyio.. BIOYPo.rpiw rwv ev rOlr; ypo.fl.J.io.(J1 blaAo.fl.tpo.vrwv EA).~VWV ... (1453-1821) [Neohellenic literature. Biographies of Greeks who have excelled in the let­ters 1453-1821], ASi]va 1868.

~T£qJav(8T]~ M., Al rpV(JIKo.i e7rlm~fl.a.t ev ElJ.o.bl lrpO Tytr; Elro.vo.mo.(Jewr;. H eKlrwbevnK~ elro.vo.mo.(Jlr; [The physical sciences in Greece before the revolution. The educational revo­lution], ASi]vUl 1926.